Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER In the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — Energy

Energy Conservation Division

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he proposes any changes in the functions of his Department's energy conservation division.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): No, Sir.

Mr. Viggers: Will my hon. Friend comment on press speculation that the Government might be proposing a new conservation agency? Does he agree that, whatever the merits of such a proposal, the best possible agent for the cost-effective use of energy is a realistic pricing policy?

Mr. Moore: It is not my place, especially after recent events, to comment on press speculation. I accept the point that my hon. Friend has made about price being a key factor in energy conservaton, but we have no immediate plans to introduce an energy conservation agency. The possibility of establishing an energy conservation agency has been considered in the Department, but only as one possible option for developing the Government's conservation strategy. I agree with the importance of ensuring effective co-ordination of energy conservation policy. My Department already carries out that function. Establishing an energy conservation agency is not the only or necessarily the best way forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For someone taken by surprise, that was a very long reply.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister agree that absent from his statement on the possible reconsideration of energy policy was a statement on the social costs or factors involved in repricing in energy policy? Will he take the aged and the disabled into account?

Mr. Moore: The Government have made that clear by their large programme of help to those in need. There is a major £200 million-plus programme of help to those in need. That shows the Government's keen concern for those aspects of social, as opposed to energy, policy.

Mr. Forman: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view about a possible new energy conservation institution, but does he agree that there is a great opportunity for a new Government initiative on energy conservation, as in so many ways that could be the most cost-effective way of proceeding with energy policy?

Mr. Moore: I accept my hon. Friend's point about the degree to which energy conservation is cost-effective, but he should recognise that the Government's conservation policy, which will be discussed in the debate later today, is proceeding successfully.

Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to argue before the House and the country that the basis of an energy conservation policy must be pricing is a lazy policy for any Government to pursue in tackling conservation?

Mr. Moore: Quite the contrary. I was referring to one point that my hon. Friend made. I should have thought that recognising the realities of price was an honest part of our overall energy conservation policy.

Energy Prices

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his consideration of measures to assist industrial high energy users whose energy costs compare unfavourably with their international competitors.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on energy prices for industry.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): It was agreed at the NEDC meeting in January that British industry generally was not at a disadvantage compared with its international competitors over energy costs. The Government have made clear their concern that certain energy-intensive industries are having to pay more for their energy than some of their counterparts overseas. If the pound continued to strengthen against European currencies, it could lead to increasing disparities in energy prices in sterling terms. The NEDC task force will shortly be reporting on the current situation for large users.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that it becomes better known than it is at present that industrial energy prices on the Continent have risen at least as fast as they have in this country? That is not generally realised. When considering special measures to assist high energy users, will he take into account the fact that those include not only industries such as steel, but certain parts of the textile industry, even though they do not have the same pull as the steel industry?

Mr. Howell: The concern of the NEDC task force is with the high load and large users, where it seems to be agreed that disparities may exist, but I understand my hon. Friend's question. The first part of his question is correct. All over the world, and indeed in many European countries, energy prices have been rising at a faster rate than they have here. We have had a huge oil price explosion, the shock waves of which are going through all industrial systems throughout the world.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the weight of evidence being produced by several industries, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), is overwhelmingly in support of the view that our industry is being unfairly discriminated against on energy pricing? Why are the Government continuously prevaricating on the matter? When may we have a definitive statement on their policies?

Mr. Howell: The NEDC task force was set up to identify the precise areas where allegations and beliefs proved to be more than just feelings and were facts. As was recognised by the Government a considerable time ago, there are disparities for bulk users. As I mentioned in my original answer, the continual movement of the pound makes the disparities even harder and greater in some cases. That has been recognised. That is why the task force was set up, and the Government have said that they will respond when they see the exact nature of the problem.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, among our international competitors, the French are making great progress in keeping down the rise in electricity prices by the use of nuclear power? Will he take this early opportunity to rebut the findings of our Select Committee in that respect?

Mr. Howell: I do not want to take this opportunity to comment on the Select Committee's report, which is being studied closely by the Government. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The cost structure of an electricity industry with a growing nuclear component and a large hydroelectric component is bound to be increasingly favourable in future. That is why the Government believe that we should have a modest, but expanding, nuclear programme.

Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State should not come to the Dispatch Box and be so bland and complacent on issues that are of serious importance to the whole of our industry. When will the NEDC report emerge? With each week that goes by, companies lose vital export orders as a result of energy prices. Will the right hon. Gentleman confess not only that he forced up gas prices to domestic consumers by more than the British Gas Corporation wanted last year, but that he insisted that it should impose higher increases on industrial consumers? Will he take on board the arguments from both sides of the House that industry is seriously affected by the Government's energy policy?

Mr. Howell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the report is expected on about 4 March. On the second question, the BGC's industrial energy policy is determined by economic pricing principles, which the Government adhere to and which are in accordance with the corporation's own policy and aims in industrial energy. Domestic energy prices are about half those in France and Germany. That is generally recognised by industry, which has urged that those prices should rise even faster. I have resisted that, because I believe that the proposed rate of increase is substantial. However, industry was pressing me to do even more.

North Sea Oil Industry

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about his investigations into allegations that certain employers in the North Sea oil industry are exploiting cheap overseas labour.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): The undertaking that I gave in a recent Scottish Television programme related to statements made about the Universal Services International. My officials have taken these up with the company, which has now

given an undertaking to phase out the employment of non-EEC nationals on rigs in United Kingdom waters by the middle of this year. I have asked the Offshore Supplies Office to monitor progress and keep me advised.

Mr. Canavan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an absolute scandal that an American multinational company, such as the one that he has named, should have been allowed in the first place to exploit overseas workers by paying them only one-third of the trade union rate for the job and making them work 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, for six weeks at a time? Is it not time that employment protection legislation was extended to the North Sea and that the Government issued instructions through the Offshore Supplies Office that no contracts should be given to the American multinational gangsters that are operating an international slave trade in the North Sea?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has a weakness for overstating his case. To put the matter in perspective, it is worth pointing out that of all those employed on the United Kingdom continental shelf, 92 per cent. are United Kingdom nationals. The company in question has a very good record on procurement. It buys practically all its supplies within the Aberdeen area. In addition, 65 per cent. of its personnel operating out of Aberdeen are United Kingdom nationals. I have no comment to make about those who have been taken on by the company away from the United Kingdom.

Coal Industry

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future investment in the coal industry,

Mr. David Howell: I and my colleagues meet the chairman of the NCB frequently to discuss aspects of the board's affairs. In my recent tripartite talks with both sides of the industry I reaffirmed the Government's commitment to investment in the coal industry's long-term future.

Mr. Dormand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great moral debt owed to the coal industry and, particularly, to the miners, because of the ineptitude shown by the Government over the past two weeks in disrupting the good relations in the industry? Will he bear that in mind when he has the investment talks—I read in the papers that there is to be a meeting on Wednesday—and seek to introduce legislation immediately to amend the Coal Industry Act 1980 and to deal with the importing of coal? In closing uneconomic pits, are the Government likely to meet the agreement on production targets that they reached in Venice last year?

Mr. Howell: There is no need for legislation. I should make it clear that there is no question of having a general system of import controls. I do not like import controls. What is being proposed is that the NCB should have the resources to price more of its coal competitively with the imports being brought in by the CEGB and the BSC and thus help to reduce imports towards the irreducible minimum. That is what the Government have said that they will discuss with an open mind towards movement next Wednesday.
The undertaking at the Venice agreement was that there should be a doubling of coal production in the next 10


years. The vast bulk of that will come from the United States, Canada and Australia. Britain is by far the best performer, almost in the world, in terms of coal burn in electricity and coal use for electricity generation. We are well ahead on that.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that funds for highly profitable, low-cost pits will not be available if money goes to some of the uneconomic pits'? Is he also aware that it is not satisfactory to the United Kingdom if we have one set of economic laws for the miners and another set for the rest of the country?

Mr. Howell: The implication of my hon. Friend's question is correct. The long-term interests of the industry, which has a great future, lie in investment in modern pits and effective investment in new faces in existing pits. As it is an extractive industry, that inevitably involves a degree of closures as well. That has always been recognised by both sides of the industry and it is the basis on which we shall plan a common sense future together.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past 10 years, pits have closed on the basis of having no further reserves, and not on the basis of being uneconomic at a particular time? Pits that are uneconomic at one time could become economic later. Will he confirm that the irreducible minimum of imports will be 1 million tonnes, as suggested by Sir Derek Ezra on the night of the concession made by the Government' Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how long it will take to reach that figure? That is very important for the miners. Will he also bear in mind that, to assist the miners and industry generally, the Government have a duty to change their policy in order to get away from the recession, to build up industry, to burn more coal and to help everybody else in the process?

Mr. Howell: The reduction of imports by the CEGB and the BSC will be discussed with the industry next Wednesday. It is right that that matter should be discussed in the tripartite forum in a common sense atmosphere. With regard to the NCB's policy on closures, the board and the unions have been asked to discuss a pattern for closures consistent with the Plan for Coal, and consistent also with the severe economic realities that all industries face. The Government have indicated that they are prepared to discuss the financial implications with an open mind and also with a view to movement. That is what we shall discuss at Wednesday's tripartite meeting.

Mr. Eggar: Is it not the case that the coal industry cannot be immune from the economic recession? Does not the Plan for Coal specifically envisage extensive pit closures, only about half of which have been achieved since the plan was agreed?

Mr. Howell: No industry can be immune from the difficulties faced by all those in business and industry during an economic recession. My hon. Friend is correct on that point.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the whole matter of cash limits and imports needs to be considered positively, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government are not going into the talks on the surly basis that they were defeated last week?

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend and I have made clear the basis on which the discussions were held last

week and the basis on which the talks on Wednesday will be held. The words that I used in the House on Thursday were perfectly clear. They were the words used to both sides of industry. They are the words that were accepted by both sides of industry. They will be the basis for our talks at the tripartite meeting on Wednesday.

Energy Prices

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had during the last month with leaders of British industry on energy pricing policy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): At the NEDC in January it was agreed that a task force should be set up to report on energy prices to bulk users. This task force, on which both the CBI and my Department are represented, is therefore the main forum for discussion with industry at present. I will, of course, be discussing its findings at the NEDC meeting on 4 March.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Under-Secretary noted the comments of Courtaulds, which has maintained in every closure announcement that it has made over the last 12 months that the reasons for closure have been the high cost of energy and the high cost of feedstock? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene and set up an investigation into the relationship between textile closures and high energy costs and high feedstock costs? Will he say whether he intends to accept any recommendation that the task force may make on prices?

Mr. Lamont: I have noticed the statements by Courtaulds, just as I have noticed those of a number of firms in the industrial sector. The Government are waiting for the conclusions of the NEDC task force, which will be available on about 4 March. They will then formulate their response. The hon. Gentleman referred to feedstock. I should point out that some companies in this country have very cheap feedstock which has been the cause of comment and complaint from some producers abroad.

Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend accept that the most effective, immediate way of helping large energy-consuming industries would be a reduction in the rate of duty on heavy oil?

Mr. Lamont: That is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that he will note what my hon. Friend says. Many people have made representations to that effect.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister accept that almost six months have lapsed since the steel industry in South Yorkshire, both the private and public sectors, presented the facts about the very difficult position faced by that industry as a result of energy prices being higher than those of its competitors in France and Germany? Does he realise that the task force is duplicating the work that was carried out by the industry? When can we expect a helpful response?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is not right. Many matters have to be clarified. The hon. Gentleman referred to the case made by the steel industry. One point that emerged from the evidence of the steel industry on energy prices was that the utilities in this country had, over two years, put up their prices by rather less than the


Continental countries had done. When the exchange rate factor was taken into account, a different picture emerged. It is not so simple as the hon. Gentleman says. We recognise that industry has problems when there are bulk buyers. We have asked the utilities to prepare proposals, to which the Government have referred on previous occasions.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not somewhat hypocritical for the Labour Party to complain about energy prices when its leader treats a decision to maximise the less economic forms of coal production as a victory? Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is not helping the Minister.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not always intend to. Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House on whether concessions from the National Coal Board on pricing to enable its two biggest customers to meet the price of imported coal will be extended to substantial users of imported coal in the private sector.

Mr. Lamont: The answer to the latter point is "No". We are discussing the position of two nationalised corporations. There is no question of the general position being altered. On my hon. Friend's first point, I note what he says, including his remark that he does not always want to be helpful.

House Insulation

Sir Albert Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department will negotiate with the gas boards with a view to their including a leaflet when sending out gas bills advising consumers how to obtain Government grants for insulating homes.

Mr. John Moore: I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the gas regions have already done so.

Sir Albert Costain: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that this document shows the extra help given to old-age pensioners? The heating of their homes means so much to their continued good health.

Mr. Moore: I shall draw the point that my hon. Friend makes to the attention of the gas boards. There are specific additional forms of help, including up to 90 per cent. on insulation, for those who are elderly and in special need.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Would there not be more advantages for the consumer if the Government adhered to their declared policy of non-intervention, instead of forcing an industry that is making substantial profits to make astronomical rises in prices?

Mr. Moore: I think that my hon. Friend was trying to ask me to encourage the British Gas Corporation, like other nationalised corporations, to help the consumer to understand the benefits of insulation to industry, to the nation and to individuals. That is to be commended.

Mr. Forman: I welcome the progress already made by the gas boards, but is there not a case for changing the statutory terms of reference so that both gas and electricity boards can go into conservation properly, as on the West Coast of the United States?

Mr. Moore: Any suggestions of that kind merit attention, but I am obviously not at liberty to discuss statutory changes at this time.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister not aware that gas consumers understand all too well that they will face a 25 per cent. increase in gas prices in the coming year? That is a gas bill of £450 million for average domestic gas consumers. Would it not be better at least to withdraw the 10 per cent. surcharge imposed by the Government and allow the British Gas Corporation to set its own prices?

Mr. Moore: Apart from the fact that the domestic gas sector only just about breaks even, I believe that Opposition Members should be more aware of the ways in which rational pricing is producing an expenditure of £400 million this year on domestic insulation in the United Kingdom.

Oil Prices

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made towards international adherence to the Venice summit commitment to economic pricing of oil.

Mr. David Howell: Good progress is being made. The United States has recently taken steps to ensure that domestic prices for oil should take into account representative world prices. We shall continue to pay close attention to this subject in the appropriate international bodies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I recognise the action taken in various countries on international prices of oil, especially in the United States, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe for further initiatives on the prices of gas in various countries, particularly the United States, to ensure that gas prices are set on an economic basis, along the lines of the courageous policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend's objective. In fact, the Government have made it clear at International Energy Agency ministerial meetings that we believe that economic pricing policy should apply to all fuels, and not simply oil. If that does not happen, as my hon. Friend rightly says, industries in this country, as throughout the rest of Europe, are subjected to considerable unfair competition. That is not satisfactory. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that it is a matter that must be changed.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that his policy of running ahead of the field, in particular in relation to United States energy pricing, is severely damaging to British industry? Does he not accept that we should call a halt until the United States and other like nations catch up with us?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must realise that a policy of general intervention to hold down energy prices would not help solve the particular problems that some energy-intensive industries face. The idea that one can deal with particular problems, which often go far deeper than energy pricing, by general and highly expensive intervention in energy pricing not only undermines future energy investment, but is highly cost-effective. It would be the worst way to help the industries concerned.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: But what does "economic pricing" of oil mean? Does it mean Government intervention to put our prices at the level set by OPEC?

Mr. Howell: It means that the price of oil is the world market price, which is set in the Rotterdam world oil


market. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is another price of oil that can be secured, I urge him to try to buy oil below the world market price or to sell it above the world market price. He will find that he cannot do it.

Places of Worship (Electricity Tariff)

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will issue a general direction to electricity supply boards that places of worship should be classified as domestic premises for the purposes of electricity tariff.

Mr. Norman Lamont: No, Sir. Formulation of electricity tariffs is a statutory responsibility of the area electricity boards. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind this would best be pursued direct with the board concerned.

Dr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have done that, without any satisfaction? The Yorkshire electricity board treats places of worship as commercial and miscellaneous premises, with the result that they are allocated a large primary block of units for charging purposes, so large for some spacious churches that their consumption never exceeds that primary block, for which they have to pay through the nose. Will the Minister examine the matter again and iron out this injustice?

Mr. Lamont: I shall look at the matter again. It is also open to the hon. Gentleman to take it up with the consultative council. I do not think that he has done that.

Dr. Marshall: I have—nationally.

Mr. Lamont: It is by no means clear that the change that the hon. Gentleman wants will definitely be of advantage. He should take into account the fact that church halls are often most used at a time of peak demand, when the charges reflect the costs of supplying electricity at that time.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that if he goes to church regularly—perhaps that is what Ministers need to do, because we are reaching the stage at which at least we need some praying, if nothing else—he will find that churches cannot afford to meet fuel prices, because they are going so high, and half the churches are freezing cold on a Sunday?

Mr. Lamont: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that I went to church yesterday, when I had the pleasure of praying for Her Majesty's Ministers. It was extremely cold.

Energy Conservation

Mr Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that his policies in relation to energy conservation are fully understood by the general public.

Mr. John Moore: Expenditure on information and advice provided by my Department has been increased by 30 per cent. in real terms in 1980–81 as part or our efforts to help the public understand the reality of energy price changes at a time when world energy prices are increasing rapidly. Since the beginning of 1979, world dollar oil prices have risen by 175 per cent. or more than doubled, excluding general inflation. We believe that the message is getting through.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the presentation of the Government's energy policy illustrates the dilemma of having a good policy not very well explained, which is not unknown to Conservative Governments? Where conservation is a major factor in energy pricing, will he and his colleagues do their best to do a little better than they have done to explain the policies, which I am sure are adequate, in language that people can understand?

Mr. Moore: I shall always listen to my hon. Friend and learn from him, but harsh reality is always difficult to communicate. However, I point out that in the past 18 months about 1 million homes have had their lofts insulated, which I suggest indicates that the message is getting through.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Will the Minister concede that persuasion, as well as understanding, is required? Will he have regard to the sums being spent by countries such as France, Germany, the United States and Sweden on fiscal measures to encourage conservation, and accept that in the last resort economic pricing is not in itself a sufficient incentive to carry out a comprehensive exercise in conservation?

Mr. Moore: All the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned regard economic pricing as the cornerstone of economic conservation. I accept that changing long-term attitudes is a difficult task of persuasion, but at the end of the day the total of Government expenditure is not a sufficient indicator of the long-term success of a nation's energy conservation policies. The true indicator is a change in individual demand attitudes, which is much more difficult.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are entitled to know where the market price for oil is decided? Does he agree that the market price at present is decided by OPEC, which controls 90 per cent. of the oil used in the free world, and that the Rotterdam market trades in only about 10 per cent.?

Mr. Moore: I have enough difficulty explaining the Government's energy conservation policies without trying to communicate that problem.

Mr. Eadie: When we discuss conservation, does the Minister agree that the public are entitled to know that the manufacturers of insulation feel betrayed by the Government, in that their factories are working below capacity and they are forced to pay people off? How do the Government account for that when they boast about their insulation policy?

Mr. Lamont: We all recognise the difficulties in a recession, but the facts are more important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has just announced a 30 per cent. increase in real terms in the home insulation grant for 1981–82. The facts speak far better than comments of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

Combined Heat and Power

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many local authorities have expressed interest in developing experimental combined heat and power schemes.

Mr. John Moore: Thirty-two local authorities have expressed some interest in the Government's CHP feasibility programme. However, some of these relate to the same candidate for possible lead city status; for example, South Yorkshire county council has supported the city of Sheffield's claims.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that Sheffield is very keen to take part in the scheme? Such experiments could have far-reaching consequences for energy conservation—far beyond the other programmes that we have so far.

Mr. Moore: I am very much aware of the support of the Members of Parliament in the Sheffield area and of Sheffield city council for Sheffield's place in the scheme. The six areas that have been recommended are Glasgow, Newcastle, East-Central London, Sheffield, Belfast and Liverpool. There is extensive interest in, and support for, the lead city scheme proposals.

Mr. Rost: As it is estimated that there are already about 3,000 district combined heat and power schemes in non-Communist, Western Europe, making a major contribution to supplying the consumer with waste heat, and benefiting the economy, does my hon. Friend not think that perhaps we are moving just a little cautiously in removing the obstacles that prevent it from developing here—apart from just one lead city scheme?

Mr. Moore: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's long interest in, and support for, combined heat and power and district heating. I think that the Government are moving as fast as they can, when they must recognise that ultimately they are talking about the expenditure of public money.

Private Electricity Generation

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to introduce legislation which will make possible the private generation of electricity as a main business.

Mr. Norman Lamont: As my right hon. Friend announced on 21 July 1980, we intend to remove the present statutory prohibition as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

Mr. Rost: If it is the Government's genuine intention to remove this obstacle, by doing which they can make a major contribution to getting combined heat and power going in the country, why not use this afternoon's Energy Conservation Bill and put a sensible clause into that?

Mr. Lamont: We genuinely intend to make this change, and we have another legislative vehicle in mind for it.

Cross-Channel Cable

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Energy why he asked the Central Electricity Generating Board to investigate an alternative cable route across the Channel for the 2,000 megawatts cross-Channel cable link; what was the cost of the survey; and who will meet it.

Mr. Norman Lamont: At the public inquiry, objectors to the proposal to site the converter station at Sellindge suggested Dungeness as an alternative. Being able to site

the station there depends on the feasibility of taking the cable there from France via the Varne Bank. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and Energy therefore asked the CEGB to investigate the feasibility of a cable route frome Varne to Dungeness. This involved a sea bed survey.
I understand that the survey cost about £500,000. The cost is being met by the board.

Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approval for the scheme was given by his right hon. Friend as long ago as last July, that the French are getting increasingly impatient about the delay, and that the delay is due not to the CEGB but to the objections of highly placed individuals living near the proposed site for the converter station, including the editor of The Daily Telegraph and Lord Aldington, vice-chairman of the General Electric Company, both former Members of this House? Is it not wrong that so much trouble should be taken over two objectors because they are highly placed, when the ordinary objector would not be listened to?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend has a statutory duty in this matter and, therefore, that it would be improper for me to comment on his remarks.

Sir Albert Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the statement made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is only half true and that, had he been at the inquiry at Sellindge on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, he would have learnt that new information came to hand which was vital to any decision?

Mr. Lamont: I am afraid that my answer to my hon. Friend must be the same: we are not in a position to comment, because of the statutory position of the two Departments.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the Minister at least take the opportunity today to confirm his belief in the urgency of this proposal in terms of the additional generation that it provides for the CEGB and the further impetus for coal usage, in view of recent decisions?

Mr. Lamont: This is such an important project that the Government have to pay regard to the objections that have been raised.

Mr. Warren: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what will be the impact of delay on this project, which will be of advantage to both sides of the Channel?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there are considerable economic advantages in the project. However, the Government, despite seeing that clearly, and despite having given investment approval to the project, are statutorily bound to pay attention to the environmental and other objections that have been made against the scheme.

North Sea Oil (Taxation)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that the present regime of taxation of North Sea Oil producers is optimally suited to the needs of United Kingdom energy policy.

Mr. Gray: I am confident my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take full account of United Kingdom energy policy requirements when considering his Budget measures.

Mr. Eggar: Although I accept the case for additional taxation, is there not a real danger that frequent changes to a taxation policy that is already extremely complicated will lead to a decrease in activity in the North Sea, which will be very harmful to the long-term development of our energy policy?

Mr. Gray: I feel confident that the proposals that will be announced by my right hon. and learned Friend will not place any inhibition on the oil companies. I remind my hon. Friend that of the seven changes in taxation affecting the oil companies that have taken place since the Government came to power, albeit some of them very minor, six had already taken place before the announcement of the seventh round of licensing, yet, with 123 applicants, we broke all records in that.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that many financial experts think that the major oil companies are getting away with much bigger profits than they should be allowed? Will he therefore use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make. certain that the country gets a fairer and better share of the profits from North Sea oil?

Mr. Gray: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has exaggerated slightly. It is necessary for us to have a steady flow of investment in the North Sea. The line that we draw between getting the proper benefit in the national interest and providing an incentive for those who wish to invest is a very delicate one. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get it right.

Mr. Viggars: Although high rates of taxation are, to a greater or lesser extent, no doubt a disincentive to exploration in the North Sea, does my hon. Friend agree that uncertainty is also a disincentive? Does he agree, further, that there may be grounds for considering quite soon some kind of assurance on the lines of the Varley assurances given in 1970–74, which would give some idea of future stability for the industry?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be aware that we honoured the Varley assurances. It might be useful to look at something along the lines that he suggests. We are always prepared to consider these matters. I assure him that this is receiving serious consideration at the moment.

Later—

Energy Conservation

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the insulation industry concerning the effectiveness of the conservation programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moore: The Government have regular contacts with all sectors of the insulation industry. We believe that our energy conservation policy will result in a continuing and expanding market for the industry.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the change in the system of housing improvement finance has meant that there has been a drop in the number of insulation improvements carried out in public sector housing? Will he consult the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to restoring specific allocations of housing grants for local authorities for public sector housing?

Mr. Moore: Although there has been a drop, it has been somewhat exaggerated in comments by the industry. The take-up seems to be nearer 60 per cent. than the 33 per cent. that the industry's figures suggest. It is not fair to observe that that necessarily arises from a change in the system of allocation. However, I obviously share my hon. Friend's concern about any reduction in local authority insulating standards.

Oral Answers to Questions — House of Commons

Scottish Business

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will take steps to improve the opportunity of the House to deal with Scottish business.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I have no proposals to make at the moment.

Mr. Canavan: Although the Government have now clearly ditched any older commitments for genuine devolution, why is there such reluctance even to the idea of having the Scottish Grand Committee sit in Scotland now and again? Are the Government afraid that Scottish Tory Members and Scottish Office Ministers would be publicly exposed as the puppets of a discredited Government whose policies are so disastrous and unpopular that more than 50,000 people took to the streets of Glasgow on Saturday to demonstrate their opposition?

Mr. Pym: This is an important matter. In recent weeks I have been considering the inter-party talks. In due course I shall bring forward proposals to the House as a result of those talks.

Mr. Millan: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government, as far back as 7 August of last year, said that they would recommend to the House that the proposals from the inter-party talks should be accepted by the House. Why is there this delay? These are extremely moderate proposals, but they would provide a little improvement in the way that we handle Scottish business. They should have been brought forward long before now.

Mr. Pym: Be that as it may, in the course of the last five or six weeks that I have held my present office I have been considering this, among many other matters. One of the matters remaining to be cleared up was, for example the important one of pensions, which we dealt with last week. I shall bring proposals on this matter before the House reasonably soon.

Select Committees

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for increasing the time available on the Floor of the House for debating reports from Select Committees.

Mr. Pym: I shall endeavour to find time for such debates as the need arises and in accordance with the wishes of the House.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is an extremely vague and meaningless reply? Does he not recognise that, as these Select Committees are


working extremely hard and producing extremely important reports—especially the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—he should give a firm undertaking that in this Session he will bring forward proposals to specify a number of days per Session for debates on these important reports?

Mr. Pym: I agree that these reports are important. However, it is fair to say that, up till now at any rate, the Liaison Committee has not felt it necessary to make representations in the sense just made by the hon. Gentleman. I want to watch the development of these Select Committees. I doubt whether a specific number of days will be the appropriate way of dealing with the problem. But I am sure that, as the need arises, we can consider in due course how best to handle it.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he allows more time for debates in this House on the reports of these Select Committees, it is possible that right hon. and hon. Members who serve on Select Committees will dominate those debates? Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that some of us are concerned that the appointment of the Select Committees has already detracted from the value of the Chamber itself? I hope that he will not continue this process.

Mr. Pym: It is also true that the Select Committees have provided a good deal of additional information, both for this House and for people outside. They are still at a very early stage of their development. I do not think that there is any need for events in a Select Committee to affect how a specific matter is handled on the Floor of the House. There has never been any question of anything like every report from every Select Committee being debated on the Floor, obviously not, but from time to time there will be occasions when the House feels that a specific report should be debated. As the need arises, I shall endeavour to find time.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that for the past 150 years there has been a succession of excuses for the Chamber being empty, that this is only the latest of the various excuses, and that the Opposition hope that he will continue with the experiments, and indeed increase them?

Mr. Pym: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. It must, and I am sure always will be, the case that this Chamber is the centre of our deliberations.

Mr. Fell: If my right hon. Friend is successful in finding plenty of time, will he consider taking a few Committee stages of Bills on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Pym: I am not sure how popular that would be. My hon. Friend knows the constraints upon any Leader of the House. Where it is appropriate, naturally we shall have to find the time. I note what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House also bear in mind the fact that there is a strong body of opinion on both sides of the House, and certainly on the Opposition Benches, to the effect that any available hours should be used to debate matters of urgency, such as the many that have arisen over the past few months under this Conservative Government? That would give us an opportunity to raise such matters without having to make application all the time to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that some of

us—perhaps more than that now that the Committees are sitting—believe that they are simply sloppy all-party consensus Committees and that we cannot afford to spend any more time on them down here?

Mr. Pym: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are no new proposals before the House to change its procedures in that way at the moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of those who seek to take advantage of such opportunities as there are for raising mattors, but I have no new proposals to make at present.

Parking Space (Disabled Persons)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, to mark the International Year of Disabled People, he will take measures to increase the parking space available for disabled people within the Palace of Westminster during office hours, having particular regard to the increasing number of disabled people attending debates and meeting Members.

Mr. Pym: I will arrange for a review to be held. It would be helpful if the all-party disablement group would make its own reappraisal, and bring forward a proposal as part of the overall review of facilities for the disabled which it has already been agreed should be undertaken.

Mr. Carter-Jones: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful reply, may I suggest that there are facilities in the House that are being misused? Will he look at that? In this International Year of Disabled People, will he take into account the embarrassment and difficulty faced by these people? Does he agree that we should consider also the embarrassment caused to ourselves when constituents visit us and the problems faced by Officers of the House and the police in finding such accommodation?

Mr. Pym: It would, of course, be the purpose of such a review to look at all these matters. We thought that it would be a good beginning for the all-party disablement group to put in its own views in the first instance, but of course we want to do what we can to help.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as part of the activities in my constituency for the International Year of Disabled People I spent a couple of hours in a wheelchair on Friday, which gives one a much better opportunity to appreciate the problems? As my right hon. Friend is responsible for co-ordinating Government policy, will he do his best to ensure that local authorities, Government Departments and organisations such as the Post Office make a real effort this year to see what they can do to help disabled people to overcome some of the problems in their ordinary lives which those of us who are more fortunate do not normally encounter?

Mr. Pym: I think that every organisation, both public and private, is giving consideration to this matter. I do not think that it is for the Government, as it were, to instruct the Post Office, but it is well known that the Government are behind the efforts being made in this International Year of Disabled People, and we shall, of course, wish to do what we can to help.

Members' Office Facilities

Mr. Soley: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to improve the office facilities available to hon. Members.

Mr. Pym: Not at present, but, as the House knows, there is the Casson scheme for Bridge Street, which could be reconsidered when circumstances are more favourable.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister agree that conditions are far worse here than in almost any other comparable country? How long will it be before decent facilities are available at least to all those who wish to have them?

Mr. Pym: While what the hon. Gentleman says may be true, I can only say that when I first came to the House the arrangements were a jolly sight worse. I think that it is necessary to point that out. As the hon. Gentleman has complained, it is right to recognise what has been done in the intervening years. It is a continuing process. If a major advance is required, in due course, when times are better, no doubt we can make it. Clearly, one is aware, in one's own capacity, apart from anyone else's, of the shortcomings of this building.

Mr. Fell: Axe we sure that it is desirable to change the character of the House? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is what has happened over the past few years? By providing all these facilities, are we not already denuding the Palace of Westminster of the Members themselves?

Mr. Pym: Whilst I might in a sense have some personal sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend, I think that it is only the truth to say that over the years the great majority of Members in all parts of the House have required, and almost insisted upon, the kind of expansion, development and improvement of office and other facilities that has taken place. I think that it has been in response to the general wishes of the House that these changes have been made.

Government Policy (Presentation)

Mr. Adley: asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on methods of presentation of Government policy.

Mr. Pym: The Government seek to ensure that information on all aspects of their policy is widely available. Ministers explain the policies they are pursuing in speeches and by interviews, through press notices and briefing and speeches and statements in the House.
The Government also make use of all forms of paid publicity, including press and television advertising, posters and leaflets.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the description of "Right-wing extremist" applied to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government, when the Government are quite properly providing huge sums of money for the nationalised industries, is ridiculous? Will my right hon. Friend therefore accept that many of us very much welcome his recent speech at Putney, which reaffirmed the pragmatic role of the Conservative Party, and will he please keep at it?

Mr. Pym: All that I can say is that, whatever else I am responsible for, I am not responsible for comments on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on any other Minister, or indeed anybody else for that matter.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the Leader of the House amplify that reply just a little? We have heard that the Secretary

of State for Trade does not intend to be a Kamikaze pilot. I had some personal experience of Kamikaze pilots during the war.

Mr. Warren: A failed Kamikaze pilot.

Mr. John Silkin: On the contrary—the hon. Gentleman is thinking of chicken Kamikaze, of course. The interesting thing about Kamikaze pilots was that they headed direct for the crash. They were not for turning. In the light of that, would the right hon. Gentleman present the Prime Minister as a Kamikaze pilot or perhaps as a more orthodox form of pilot now?

Mr. Pym: I think that I shall leave the Prime Minister to present herself. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been a Kamikaze pilot, but at least we share the fact that in previous incarnations we were both Chief Whips.

Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend assure me and, I think, most other Conservative Members, that, in spite of the slight contretemps last week, the Government will resist strikes in the public sector?

Mr. Pym: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Paymaster General if he remains satisfied with the effectiveness of the coordination of the Government publicity.

Mr. Pym: There is always room for improvement.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as long as he continues to make speeches on industrial and economic strategy of the kind that he made recently in Putney, Ministers will not have to waste any time attacking the likes of the Limehouse Lefties, as the Government will then be occupying the mainstream of politics?

Mr. Pym: I shall simply say that I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman help Members of the House who are in difficulties after hearing the weekend broadcast of the Secretary of State for Trade, in which he said that we should take no notice of what Ministers actually say?

Mr. Pym: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said. He is capable of defending and standing up for himself.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to explain by what strange alchemy I was not called to ask question 33?

Mr. Speaker: I shall explain it, very slowly. The hon. Member should realise that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to whom his question 33 is addressed, is not down to answer questions today. We therefore turned to the Minister who was first on the Order Paper to answer questions. We then went on to questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and then to those to the Paymaster General. It so happened that I went back then to the questions to the Secretary of State for Energy. If we had exhausted the questions to the Secretary of State for Energy, the first Minister on the Order Paper, I should have called the hon. Member to ask question 33.

Rosyth Dockyard

Mr. Dick Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the disappearance of radioactive material from the Royal Naval dockyard at Rosyth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): A portable radioactive source used in the testing of radiation-measuring instruments in the health physics department at Rosyth dockyard was found to be missing from its normal position on 5 February. So far, searches in the base have failed to locate this equipment and a board of inquiry has been set up by the port admiral.
The radioactive source is in a specially designed container and is not immediately hazardous to health provided that it is not tampered with.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm the day on which this material was last found to be available in the base at Rosyth? Will he also give some indication of the reasons for its disappearance? Are they related to new constructions in the health physics area of the base? What warnings are available to the public should this piece of material get outside its container? I understand that it is rather a large container, weighing about 241b, so it is not something which could easily go missing. Will he also make sure that as long as this material is still missing he will keep the House and the public informed?

Mr. Speed: On the last point, yes, of course.
On the first point, it is for the board of inquiry precisely to determine the circumstances. I hope that there will be an interim report at least within the next few days, so we may get some indication there.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he says about the general public. The container weighs about 241b, it has a diameter of 7 in, it is painted bright orange and it is marked with the words "radioactive material". I am informed that with the unit closed and at a metre range, the dosage rate is insignificant. The danger could arise if the inner container holding the radioactive material were to get out. If any member of the public finds it, he is advised to leave it alone and immediately contact the Ministry of Defence police or the Fife police, who are very much involved in the investigation.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call those hon. Members who have already risen to speak, along with the Front Bench speaker.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on the Government Benches share the concern of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas)? Can he describe the scale of the efforts being made to recover this dangerous material? If the container were broken, would that assist the discovery of the material relatively quickly? Finally, what would be the effect on the container if it were immersed in sea water?

Mr. Speed: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. Both the Ministry of Defence CID and the Fife CID are very much involved in looking for the container. They are being assisted by staff of the health physics department and staff of HMS "Revenge", which is in the dockyard, as well as by other people in the dockyard itself. A major effort

is going on to try to track down the whereabouts of the container. The board of inquiry itself is making official inquiries. I am satisfied about the effort being made.
As for whether the breaking of the seal would help detection, the radioactive source would be exposed. Therefore, special equipment is being used so that if the seal is broken the radioactivity can be detected.
As for immersion in sea water, I am informed that a stainless steel inner shield, which protects the radioactive source itself, would not corrode for many years. Therefore, there would be no dispersion of radioactivity in the sea water and no danger to animal or marine life.

Mr. William Hamilton: How soon was the Under-Secretary informed about when the object was missing? He suggested that it was found to be missing on 5 February, but it was not public knowledge until late last week. Can he explain that delay? Does he not think that this incident shows a terrifying lack in security measures at Rosyth?

Mr. Speed: No, I would not wish to anticipate the findings of the board of inquiry. I have every confidence in Admiral Kennon, who has set up the board of inquiry as a matter of urgency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally fair in these matters, will not wish to anticipate its findings either. I was informed last week.
Coming back to the earlier question, we do not yet know; it is true that it was on 5 February, on a routine muster as part of the security arrangements, that the container was first found to be missing. I would not wish to go any further at this stage, because we must see what the board of inquiry, which will be pursuing the matter with considerable vigour, has found out for itself.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: What is the radioactive source, and what is its strength in curies?

Mr. Speed: I cannot tell my hon. Friend what the strength is in curies specifically. There are various amounts of radiation, depending on whether the radioactive source is touched directly on the inner stainless steel container within which it is sealed or whether it is touched on the outer lead container.
For example, contact with the surface of the closed container—the closed container would have to be opened with a special tool to get at the inside stainless steel container—would give a dosage of 20 to 30 millirems per hour. If the container were actually held, it would take 16 hours for the legal dosage for one year to be reached. On the other hand, if the container were opened, the dosage rate would be 1,200 millirems per hour, and it would take about three hours to reach the legal dosage for a year. So my answer depends very much on the circumstances. That is why it is important that anyone finding the container should not interfere with it but should leave it well inside so that the appropriate arrangements can be made for it to be rendered safe.

Mr. Bruce Millan: There has been some suggestion in the press that there was considerable delay in informing the local police on this matter. Will the Minister comment on that? If it is true, it is of course worrying. Secondly, even if this container may not be particularly dangerous—unless it is opened, of course—its disappearance raises considerable questions about security at the dockyard. May we be assured,


therefore, that the board of inquiry is looking into the widest question of security there and not just this disappearance?

Mr. Speed: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are important security aspects. I expect the board of inquiry to address itself to them. There will be an interim report within the next few days, but I expect the final report to address itself to that matter. If it did not, I should wish it to do so.
I am not aware of any great delay in informing the civilian police. However, in the first instance the Ministry of Defence CID was informed. It started its inquiries and then extended them to bring in civilian police. All those matters will be covered by the board of inquiry.

The Hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth

The Speaker: I have a brief statement to make.
On Friday last, 20 February, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) submitted to me his resignation as Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, and also as Deputy Speaker. I believe that the whole House would like me to express sincere gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for the distinguished and honourable way in which he has served the House as Deputy Speaker. He maintained the historic traditions of the Chair with complete impartiality. On behalf of the Deputy Speakers and myself, I wish to place on record our personal gratitude.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On previous occasions I have complained that the House appears to be the last place where information is given. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Trade made some quite extraordinary and frank admissions about changes in Government policy. If the House is not to be treated with contempt, a Minister, or one of his ministerial colleagues, should make a statement about such important matters. Why should such statements be made simply on television? Why should not Ministers come to the House and say what is intended—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a good run. We are all aware that right hon. and hon. Members are asked questions on television. If they are unwise, they answer them.

Courtaulds, Aintree

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened closure of the Courtaulds factory at Aintree, with the loss of 1,550 jobs.
It is clearly a specific matter. It concerns one factory, which is to be closed not because it has a poor industrial relations record, not because it is producing an inferior product, not even because it is uncompetitive, but simply because it is being crippled by the criminally insane and callous economic policies pursued by probably the most bigoted and callous Government of the past few decades.
The closure of the factory and the ending of Courtaulds' Celon production in Britain are extremely important matters, not only because of the impact that that will have on the textile industry in Britain generally—which in itself is crucial and important—but because of the serious impact on my constituents, who live in an area that already suffers from an intolerably high level of unemployment. More than 15 per cent. of people in Merseyside are unemployed. In some estates in my constituency and in inner Liverpool, 40 per cent. of work-people are unemployed. In the county of Merseyside 153,000 people are chasing a mere 2,500 jobs. There have already been 7,000 job losses in only two months this year. This threatened closure follows that of Bowaters and Tate and Lyle.
It is clearly an urgent matter. Given my brief outline of the facts, we cannot afford to lose those jobs or, indeed, any others on Merseyside. It is important also because that factory—and similarly Bowaters and, to some extent, Tate and Lyle—would not have to close if only the Government would see sense and alter their economic policies. Like so many other companies, especially in the textile industry, Courtaulds' problems have been induced by the Government. It has not created the problems for itself. Its problems are those of an artificially high and damaging exchange rate, an arbitrary Government diktat, a lunatic energy policy, and ridiculous and cripplingly high interest rates. The Government are acting complacently in the face of a flood of subsidised imports. Those are matters that neither the work force nor the company can overcome. The problems are directly attributable to the Government, and only the Government can overcome them.
The matter is specific, important and urgent. It should be debated now, so that the Government can be told at first hand about the sort of problems that they are encouraging, and the problems that they are causing my constituents and many thousands of others on Merseyside. They should be told clearly and openly the way in which their dogmatic and bigoted economic policies are destroying both the future of my constituents and the industrial base of Britain. It is an appropriate issue for the House to debate, for which the Government should be held responsible and to which they must answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened closure of the Courtaulds factory at Aintree, with the loss of 1,550 jobs.
The House listens with anxious care to such applications when they are made. I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. The House knows that it has instructed me to give no reasons for my decisions when I rule on such applications. It knows also that I do not decide whether the matter should be debated. I simply decide whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

GAELIC LANGUAGE

Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to promote broadcasting in Gaelic; and to require local authorities in Gaelic speaking areas to promote the use of Gaelic in drama and music: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

ENERGY CONSERVATION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for regulating the design, construction and operation of certain energy-consuming appliances and otherwise with respect to the nation's use of energy, it is expedient to authorise the payament out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) grants made by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury for the purposes of any scheme for the provision of advice with a view to promoting the conservation of energy; and
(b) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the provisions of that Act.—[Mr. John Moore.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (CONSULAR COMPLAINTS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the privileges and immunities to be accorded in respect of certain international organisations and in respect of persons connected with such organisations and other persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the money payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WAYS AND MEANS

MERCHANT SHIPPING

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to replace by amounts equivalent to specal drawing rights of the International Monetary Fund the amounts in gold francs specified in certain provisions limiting the liability of shipowners and others, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received by the Treasury in respect of certificates issued under that Act.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

INCOME TAX

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4049/80 and the draft Council Directive concerning the harmonisation of income tax provisions with respect to freedom of movement for workers within the Community; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements for those affected by the draft Directive.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Question agreed to.

A12 Road, Martlesham

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Keith Stainton: One is always grateful for the opportunity to ventilate an issue in this Chamber, and I am doubly grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in being present. I hope, not too precociously, that I may look forward to a sympathetic and meaningful reply.
Briefly, the issue which I raise concerns what was referred to in the June 1980 White Paper, "Policy for Roads", as the Martlesham bypass in Suffolk. It features on page 49 under the heading "Reserve List 1984 onwards" at an end-1978 cost of £3 million. Its projected length is 1·9 miles.
Both the cost and the length are timely when measured against any current road project, and this is the central point which I wish to make in the debate. We are now witnessing the reconstruction of the Ipswich southern bypass and the Orwell bridge. The total cost of this scheme will almost certainly top £70 million on current updated estimates. Yet the access to and egress from this £70 million scheme at the north-eastern corner at Martlesham will, without implementing the June 1980 White Paper proposal, merely link this magnificent new network to the existing A12 which, through both Kesgrave and Martlesham, is little more than a passable country single carriageway.
Clearly this would be wrong. The new Ipswich southern bypass will carry traffic from London to East Norfolk round Ipswich and out at Martlesham. Likewise, this junction will funnel in the reverse flow. There is also the ever-mounting container traffic generated by the Haven Ports of Felixstowe, Ipswich and Harwich deriving from the East Midlands and the North-East.
What must also be understood and appreciated is that the traffic flows in this vicinity are in any event already dangerously high. The most recent figures that I have been able to obtain from the Suffolk county surveyor show about 22,000 vehicles per 16-hour day on a yearly average, and that is a yearly average which diminishes the high seasonal flow in the summer. In the vicinity, the position is being aggravated by the happy relocation and expansion of the Post Office research station at Martlesham and the new county police headquarters and general development in the Martlesham area.
Without the Martlesham bypass, for which I am arguing tonight, the hazards, delays and tail-backs are certain to become intolerable at this point. It is in this context that I make my plea to the Minister.
Inevitably, there has been slippage with the Ipswich southern bypass itself. This gives us breathing space, I urge my hon. and learned Friend to use this to accommodate the Martlesham bypass with some certainty as part of the overall Ipswich southern bypass programme.
It is somewhat distressing that in a letter which I have received from the Suffolk county surveyor I am told that the necessary representations in this matter were made to the director of the Eastern Road Construction Unit of the Department of Transport on 18 September 1979. He says:
Despite repeated reminders, no response was received, except that in July 1980 a letter was received, stating that the


Department had been made subject to cash limits and that they were unable to devote any further resources to the joint study and that their work on Martlesham bypass had stopped.
It is my understanding from the consulting engineers, Messrs William Dobbie, that that is precisely the situation and that the possibility of the Kesgrave wing itself has become a county project upon which, happily, the county is still conducting its own survey for improvements.
I should not like, as a result of my reference to the delay in the reply from the Eastern Road Construction Unit to the representations from the county surveyor, to imply friction. Throughout very lengthy exchanges with both the Suffolk county council and the much and properly concerned Martlesham parish council, the Eastern Road Construction Unit at Bedford has shown co-operation and understanding. I should like that to be recorded and transmitted, I hope with a firm date from the Minister, so that when he or the Secretary of State cuts the tape for the official opening of the Ipswich southern bypass he will not finish up in a traffic jam or something worse as he emerges on a single carriageway at Martlesham Hill no doubt en route to visit the other numerous attributes of my constituency of Sudbury and Woodbridge.
Adjournment debates usually come on late, and the prospect of them is known to engender remote and dangerous thoughts in the minds of certain Ministers. Tonight we have been fortunate. It is still only 7.59 pm. Let us hope that this is a happy omen for a firm and early commitment to this small but critical finish to the bold new road schemes around Ipswich which were authorised ministerially under the previous Conservative Administration.

8 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) on his good fortune in being able to initiate a debate on the Martlesham bypass and also on his wisdom in choosing an evening when we could have a debate at a civilised hour. I know that this is a matter of considerable importance to him and his constituents.
My hon. Friend began by pointing out the fairly important strategic position that Martlesham has on the very busy A12 trunk road. The A12 is of great strategic importance nationally. It is the main route from London and the South-East to the ports of Ipswich, Felixstowe, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. I am glad to say that for most of its length, from London to Ipswich, it is already a high quality road.
Two stretches between London and Ipswich, however, need improvement. The first is the length from Gallows Corner in Havering to the Brentwood bypass. The second is where the A12 at present goes through the middle of Chelmsford. I am glad to report that we expect to begin work on those two gaps in the not too distant future. We expect to begin work on the Gallows Comer scheme early in 1982. Having announced last year the preferred route for the Chelmsford bypass, we hope to publish the draft orders for a southern bypass in June this; year. There will no doubt be controversy about that bypass, and inevitably there will be a public inquiry. Nevertheless, we intend to proceed with its preparation, and it is in the main programme for 1984 onwards. If all goes well with the

statutory procedures, and if funds are available, a start early in the period 1984 onwards should be possible for the Chelmsford bypass.
North of my hon. Friend's village of Martlesham we have a scheme for a western bypass of Great Yarmouth, including a second crossing of the river Yare. I am giving great priority to that bypass because of earnest requests, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I announced the preferred route in June last year and we hope to be able to publish draft orders for that road in May this year. Again, therefore, much has been achieved for Great Yarmouth.
There is also the important Ipswich bypass on which work has already begun, and I am glad to say that the Orwell bridge is making very good progress. We still have to take decisions, following a public inquiry, about the route of the southern and eastern sections of the bypass, but my right hon. Friend and I hope to announce decisions to finalise the route very soon indeed.
That activity up and down the A12 no doubt makes people in Martlesham particularly resentful at having to wait so long for their schemes to begin. My hon. Friend, with his local knowledge, has described better than I could the present traffic conditions on the A12 as they affect the village. I accept that the present road conditions are inadequate and that the village plainly needs a bypass as soon as it is feasible and practicable to finance, design and construct one. I am not sure that the opening of the Ipswich bypasss will bring more traffic on to the road than is there already, but I am sure that it will create an even greater contrast between conditions on the new stretches of the road and those in Martlesham from which my hon. Friend's constituents at present suffer.
My hon. Friend has asked when there will be tangible signs of progress, because this bypass has unfortunately had a long and chequered history. It appears to have begun life as part of a longer bypass through both Kesgrave and Martlesham. A scheme was included in draft orders published in 1970. Unfortunately, those draft orders for the longer bypass attracted much opposition. In the light of that opposition, the orders were withdrawn in 1971. I have to concede that in the intervening 10 years not very much appears to have occurred. It was apparently decided to await the results of the Ipswich transportation study, which was put in hand to seek a solution to the traffic problems of Ipswich.
With the decision to provide a bypass of Ipswich, it was decided that the original Kesgrave-Martlesham proposals should be shortened to bypass Martlesham only. It therefore became the Department's policy that the A12 through Kesgrave should cease to be a trunk road when the Ipswich bypass had been constructed. That decision, taken before the present Government came to office, means that it is now for Suffolk county council to decide whether to make any improvement to the road in order to benefit Kesgrave. By the time the Government came to office, therefore, a bypass was envisaged for Martlesham alone. It was not, however, very well advanced when we came to office.
My hon. Friend asked a parliamentary question of my predecessor in February 1979. The hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), who then held the post which I now hold, made the position clear. He said:
We are continuing work on a bypass of Martlesham and subject to the outcome of the statutory procedures and the availability of funds, construction of this bypass is more likely


to start in 1985–86. It is too early to give dates for the intermediate processes.""—[Official Report, 23 February 1979; Vol. 963, c. 383.]
That was the position of the Martlesham bypass when we came to office. One of our first duties was to reorganise the priorities in the national trunk road programme, which we did in preparing the White Paper, published last year, to which my hon. Friend referred. In that White Paper the Martlesham bypass appears in the reserve list for 1984 onwards. My hon. Friend and his constituents feel some disappointment at that not very exciting description of where the Martlesham bypass stands in the national order of priorities.
Unfortunately, we faced some difficult choices in drawing up that national trunk road programme. The main thing that we had to do was bring some realism into the programme to match the timetable that had been given for progress on various schemes with the resources that were likely to be available. We did not make any significant change in the overall level of resources, and we tried as far as possible to protect the trunk roads construction programme from the effects of the present financial crisis and to avoid unnecessary cuts.
However, maintaining roughly the same level of spend as our predecessors, it would still have been impossible to complete many road schemes by the dates that our predecessors had given to many people waiting for them. We found that roads in the trunk road programme had been given target dates which were utterly unrealistic and could not be met. The result was that expectations had been created in many towns and villages which stood no chance of being fulfilled. We therefore looked at the likely resources and produced a timetable which made sense in the light of those resources.
The first call on those resources was intended to be the schemes in the main programme, which include the Great Yarmouth scheme and others to which I have referred. Reserve list status means that such a scheme will not have first call on resources available, including resources available for preparatory and design work. The main programme schemes will have first priority for all resources. But reserve list status means that work will be continued as far as practicable. It is a way of ensuring that, if main programme schemes slip, desirable schemes are sufficiently prepared to be slotted in to take their place. That was the category of road schemes into which we put the Martlesham bypass.
At the moment, as my hon. Friend has said, there is not a great deal of work being done on the Martlesham bypass. The preparation work is not being given very high priority. Nevertheless, some work is planned for next year, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue the design work and that the consultants will be given the necessary instructions to keep up progress and to get nearer to having a road designed and ready. But we have to be careful in allocating resources for preparation work on trunk roads.
Our inheritance was that, at least in theory, preparation work was being continued on all 400 roads in the trunk road programme. If resources were to be devoted to preparation costs on that scale, it would merely mean that money would be spent over the next two or three years on preparation work for roads which could not conceivably be built for many years. The money spent on preparation

work of that kind would reduce the amount available for getting on with construction now on vitally needed roads which are ready to be built.
We are therefore trying to match the extent of preparation work to likely construction dates and we are giving the highest priority to preparation work on roads likely to be built in the next two or three years. The result is that we are fitting in preparation schemes such as Martlesham as far as possible. As I have said, I hope that it will be possible to spend a significant sum on this scheme next year.
My hon. Friend's main point, then, is whether sufficient money could be spent and higher priority given to ensure that the Martlesham bypass is opened at the same time as the Ipswich bypass or shortly thereafter. The Ipswich bypass, however, is well advanced. We are making as much speed as possible in building that road, and I hope that the full length of the bypass will be open in the not too distant future.
Unfortunately, with Martlesham we are at a comparatively early stage of the preparation. The scheme was published in 1970 but excited so much opposition that it was withdrawn. The next step now will be to examine possible alternative routes for taking the traffic around the village and for submitting them to the public for their reactions.
I realise that my hon. Friend will be more familiar with the village than I and will know this better than I do, but I expect that there will be some controversy in Martlesham whichever route we choose. For example, should we stick to a route on the lines of that indicated in the original 1970 plan, which passed to the west and north of Martlesham? My understanding is that people who live in Great Bealings and Little Bealings would not be very pleased with that choice.
On the other hand, should we go for an improvement along the lines of the existing road? That would be rather difficult in this case. One can also expect that such an improvement would be fairly unpopular in the village because it would keep the traffic in the centre of the built-up area. One could also examine the possibility of an eastern bypass, but the problem there is that difficult ground conditions could significantly increase the cost.
I pose those questions not to answer any of them but to show that there is genuinely a need in this case for public consultation and that it will be almost impossible to produce a line which will please everyone. Therefore, we have to have a public exhibition, leaflets, and so on, to try to find out which route will achieve the broadest consensus of the local inhabitants.
I am glad to say that we expect to reach that stage in the spring of 1982. We shall then come to conclusions about the route, to be worked up as soon as possible after that. Once we have reached the stage of choosing a preferred route, at least that will remove some of the uncertainty which no doubt exists in the village and affects planning decisions and matters of that kind.
However, even after the choice of preferred route has been made, there will then have to be the detailed design work to produce the drawings upon which the draft orders are founded. If there continue to be objections, there will need to be a public inquiry. I am afraid that the timetable for trunk road works of this kind is such that a great deal of good luck and smooth progress would be required if we were to be ready to start work some time in 1986, assuming that the funds were available.
I realise that that time scale will disappoint my hon. Friend and his constituents, but there is keen competition for resources. The decisions which we had to take in drawing up our priorities were often hard and involved difficult choices between similar villages in different parts of the country. Many villages like this now find heavy lorry traffic through the built-up area unacceptable. There is a greater demand for bypasses than can conceivably be served in the near future, and some deserving schemes have had to take low places in the queue. But the programme is not immutable, and we intend to review it year by year, taking things a little further as we get roads completed and into use. The time will come in this calendar year when my right hon. Friend and I will have to review the road programme once more and reassess the priorities that we put on roads last year and decide which schemes now appear to be in urgent need and which might be given greater priority.
As I said, even with greater priority, Martlesham will take some years to prepare, but no doubt the time scale that I have described could be somewhat shortened if we devoted greater resources earlier on to preparation and design work.
I can make no promises about the outcome tonight, but I am impressed by my hon. Friend's strength of feeling. He has gone to the extent not only of writing to me but of raising the matter on the Adjournment. I can certainly promise him that, when we review the programme and reconsider our priorities when updating the programme and looking at how we will spend our resources next year, we shall specifically consider the case of the Martlesham bypass to see whether we can do something better for it.
However, there is great competition for resources. Higher priority for the Martlesham bypass will almost inevitably mean a lower priority for some other township which is expecting to have a bypass in the not-too-distant future. However, I shall not deal with the difficulties. I appreciate the urgency of this matter and the sense of frustration in his constituency. Therefore, I promise that we shall give this matter our particular attention when we next review the programme and our priorities within it.

Police Houses (Gateshead)

Mr. John McWilliam: I wish to raise the problem of the acquisition of police houses by Gateshead metropolitan borough council. A total of 31 police houses were declared surplus to the police authority's requirements. Because of the problems of housing being left empty and of vandalism, the council and the Northumbrian police authority agreed that Gateshead should acquire them. To combat vandalism, it was also agreed that tenants would be put into the houses as quickly as possible and that the transfer value would be the value ascribed to the houses by the district valuer.
Nineteen of those houses were satisfactorily transferred to the council and are fully occupied. A further 12 were applied for, of which three are still vacant, five have temporary occupation and four are occupied. There is no permission to transfer any of those 12 to the council. The problem is with the four which are currently occupied in order to combat vandalism. The district valuer took so long to come up with a valuation for those houses that the Government moratorium on housing intervened. Those four houses are now occupied by people who would have to be evicted if the Government did not agree to the transfer of the houses at valuation.
Two of those four houses are occupied by people with medical priority for council housing and one was even slightly modified by the borough council to enable its disabled occupant to use it as effectively as possible. It seems that the civil servants in the Department have not fully appreciated the effects of a simple transfer being stopped. A little flexibility would have allowed those four houses to be accepted. In present circumstances, those four families could become homeless almost overnight—and two of them are the families of disabled people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) was the chairman of the Gateshead district housing authority at the time of the decision to acquire the 31 houses and I am sure that he will supplement the historical reasons why we felt it important to bring them into local government ownership.
The object of the exercise was, first, to relieve the police authority of the responsiblity for empty houses, for which it had no further use, and, secondly, to guard against vandalism.
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider fully the implications of the decision not to allow the transfer of those four houses to Gateshead at valuation. I ask him to think carefully about the consequences of that decision on the four families involved. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central to enlighten the House about the historical reasons for the houses being acquired by the local authority.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) for raising this matter. I have the honour to represent Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, but for many years I was chairman of the Gateshead metropolitan district council housing committee. We have listened to many debates about vacant properties and have heard


many remarks about local authorities in that respect. I could argue that case, but it is not the matter now before the House.
The historic position is that certain houses were unoccupied, overgrown with weeds, and radically vandalised at a time when there were long housing waiting lists. As chairman of the housing committee, I visited many of the houses. There was great justification for what was being said about them. The local authority took the view that it should open negotiations with the Tyne and Wear county council, the police authority for Northumbria. It agreed to take over all 31 houses. That presented some difficulties, because a small number were still occupied. However, it was informed that they would soon become unoccupied. The local authority thought it best to deal with the problem by phasing the taking over of the houses by first taking over those that had been vandalised, were unoccupied, or were unkempt. By that time the remainder would have become vacant. It carried out that programme succesfully in respect of about 18 or 19 houses. But Gateshead being what it is, and with the time that it takes the district valuer to assess a situation, it was inevitable—although this was not known at that time—that it would be caught in the moratorium on housing.
To save money, the local authority reached an agreement with the Tyne and Wear county council to move in tenants prior to the actual taking over of the houses. That policy prevented further vandalism because people were looking after the premises. By the time the houses were taken over the programme would cost the district council less money because people had occupied the houses and looked after them. That arrangement worked well until the local authority was caught in the moratorium.
The local authority could grant only temporary tenancies to those moving into the properties in advance of it actually taking over the houses. That was acceptable, provided that the houses were eventually taken over. Due to the delay of the district valuer—I am not placing blame on him as such matters take time—the subsequent moratorium and the delay of the Department of the Environment, the local authority had granted temporary tenancies for houses that it did not own. If nothing is done about that, and the previous decision is not now honoured, two problems will arise. The local authority is in a dilemma because it has tenants for houses that it does not own. If the police authority now says that the local authority cannot buy those houses, what will happen to the tenants? The local authority gave an undertaking and fully expected the full transaction to take place. It will have to rehouse those tenants. With the greatest humility, I suggest to the Minister that those houses will become vacant again, will be vandalised and will become unkempt. While the decision-making process is taking place, the amount of money subsequently involved in making the houses habitable again will be out of the question.
I plead with the Minister to consider the matter sympathetically. The decisions taken were caught up by subsequent decisions. Unfortunate people are involved, even though they were not parties to those decisions. The matter does not involve millions of pounds, but it does involve ordinary people. If the Minister looks favourably

on the matter, he will not only help the local authority but will ease the minds of the tenants temporarily accommodated. He will also save a great deal of money by usefully utilising the houses rather than returning them to their unoccupied state.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) on his good fortune in obtaining an additional Adjournment debate. That happens from time to time. It has one snag. As someone who has raised such a debate, I am fully aware of it. If the Minister does not know about the subject until six o'clock at night, he does not have much information at his disposal. He does not have a detailed brief to study, and he must take a judgment and act on his initiative. That does not upset me in the least. All I hope is that I can give the hon. Gentleman enough information to make him feel that it has been a worthwhile exercise. I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) for filling in those historical points.
From the limited amount of information that I have been able to obtain, I believe that the case is not as straightforward as the two hon. Gentlemen suggested. I accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central in his historical analysis of the events that took place, and the reason why Gateshead followed a certain practice with the Tyne and Wear county council, the police authority for Northumbria. There is, perhaps, only one matter that divides us tonight on his historical analysis, and that is the fact that time has moved on. A new Government are now in power with a new policy on municipalisation. The days when it was simple to acquire scores of properties—I am not necessarily referring to the hon. Gentleman's authority, but to authorities in many parts of the country—frequently unsurveyed and without proper financial consideration, are over. They ended in June 1979. The facts in this case were known fully to the Gateshead council because the ban on municipalisation took effect from June 1979.
Gateshead, like all local authorities, was told of this fact, and it was reaffirmed in the HIP allocation letter issued on 21 February 1980—more than a year ago. I repeat that all these facts were known to Gateshead. It has, however, proceeded as though the situation had not changed. I can only say that the local authority has either been naive or has wilfully chosen to disregard the fact that we specified when we sent out the HIP allocations, the categories of municipalisation that were to be permitted.

Mr. Cowans: I accept what the Minister says. One fact stands between us, however. The information to which he refers was not known when the original decision was taken. That is the crucial point. Had it all been available before the decision was made I would agree with him, but it was not.

Mr Finsberg: I was coming to that point in the course of my reply, which I stress is based on the limited information that I have. I strongly believe that municipalisation adds nothing to the housing stock. It merely transfers from one public body, or, sometimes, from a private individual, to a public authority, an existing house or flat. It does not add to the total stock of housing. The Government are strong believers that what matters is


not the division but the totality of that stock. Our policy is clearly to advise all public authorities which own accommodation that is surplus to their requirements, that they should dispose of it.
Both hon. Members made a very fair point about the difficulties caused when properties remain empty and become vandalised. I have seen some of the vandalism in Gateshead because until I was transferred to my present position I visited Gateshead about every second month. I therefore know the problems. I have seen them elsewhere. Leaving aside local authority property, there should be no reason, when a public authority is disposing of its property, for it not to do pre-planning so that it will know that in, say, five months' time it will be ready to dispose of a property. At that stage it should start the process of valuation through the district valuer, getting a price, instructing an agent or getting ready for auction so that people can view the property while it is still occupied and the transaction can take place almost the moment the property is vacated.
That is what the two hon. Gentlemen and I would do if we were contemplating getting rid of the homes we might be fortunate enough to own. We would not wait until we had moved out before starting the process. But that is what happens in the case of too many public authorities. I leave aside the local authorities, which are in a separate category.
Again, with my responsibility as a Minister for the Property Services Agency I am trying to impress upon all Government Departments that if they have properties that are surplus to their requirements they should let us know well in advance so that we may be ready to dispose of them and avoid what the hon. Gentleman rightly says are the problems caused by empty properties—broken windows and vandalism.
I have not seen the properties in question, but I know this part of the world. I am told that they are good quality inter-war houses which are highly marketable. There should, therefore, be little or no difficulty in disposing of them. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said that much of what he has recounted happened before the rules changed. I hope that I have the right dates, because a photocopy of some pencilled figures is difficult to read. My information, however, is that of the four properties we are discussing, which are tenanted properties, the property in Southend Road, Beacon Lough, was not tenanted until October 1979, after the June ban on municipalisation. Crawley Gardens, Whickham was tenanted in February 1980 and Duckpool Lane, Whickham in November 1979.
They all occurred after the ban on municipalisation. The house in Lobley Hill Road, Gateshead, was acquired in December 1978, under the previous Administration.

Mr. McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, I am sure that he will accept that it is also fair to say that, permission having previously been given to this agreement—and in the case of Whickham modifications having been made to accommodate a disabled person—there is the likelihood that there may have been an overrun. I should stress that permission had previously been given. Although the circular had withdrawn that permission, the local authority in the meantime had reviewed the housing stock. The housing allocation machinery had taken its course and people were allocated accordingly.

Mr. Finsberg: I am trying to be helpful. June 1979 was the time when local authorities were told that municipalisation as it had been known had come to an end, and no local authority should have assumed that properties would still be available to it. However, it was after that date that the houses were tenanted and that is the important point.
The local authority knew full well that it would not qualify for municipalisation permission as a result of the change of rules. Yet it put in the tenants in the full knowledge that different rules were now operating. I must go by the dates which I have been given, even though I have only had a chance of studying them for an hour-and-a-half, and they are written in pencil.
However, the Lobley Hill Road tenants were put in by the local authority in December 1978. In that case, provided that the transaction does not take place in this financial year, I am prepared to agree exceptionally that, because there was a hangover and because it was tenanted before the change, that property can be acquired out of Gateshead's HIP allocation for the next financial year.

Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to the Minister, and I know that he is trying hard to be helpful. I accept the date of the circular. However, he will recall a phrase in the speech relating to the phasing-in of tenants as property became available and as there was agreement. I accept the validity of the argument that if a circular emerges from Government subsequent to that date, one should not do other than what the Government document says. I am grateful to him for accepting my argument in relation to the 1978 acquisition. However, our reasonable point is that we had already obtained agreement for these houses prior to the putting in of tenants. No other houses were acquired following the June 1979 circular. The properties had already been acquired. The tenancies were part of the phasing-in operation. I would fully accept what the Minister is saying had we acquired houses following the June 1979 circular.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman and I must remain somewhat apart on this one. I can only try to put myself in the position of the chairman of the Gateshead housing committee. Like the hon. Gentleman, I spent a long period in local government. I would like to think that I would have seen the circular in June 1979 and I would have asked my chief officer "What effect will this have on the outline agreement that we obtained with the police authority?" He would have said "Well, sir, I think that this is now going to stop us acquiring but I shall find out." That was not done. If it had not been done, I should have said "We had better play safe. We shall put people in on a temporary basis, but we shall not asume that they will be there permanently." I am not speaking only as a Minister. I spent a quarter of a century in local government and I dealt with housing for a long time in a stress area—namely, the London borough of Camden. I do not believe that I would have acted as Gateshead acted.
However, I am prepared exceptionally to agree to the one property being acquired in the next financial year out of Gateshead's HIP allocation. My Department will write to Gateshead to confirm the decision that I have reached. I do not think that I can go any further with the other properties.

Mr. McWilliam: The Minister is being very fair. However, will he accept that the accident of a delay in a


decision by the district valuer that caused three families to become homeless is not one which he and I, as officials in housing administrations in the past, can accept as inescapable? I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman or I were officials in the same housing administration, we would in fairness grant tenancies to the other three tenants in the circumstances. We are worried not about the 12 houses but four houses, two of which are occupied by disabled tenants.

Mr. Finsberg: I hope that I have demonstrated that I am prepared to be flexible in considering the rules. However, there has to be some limit. To proceed until 1980 and to put in tenants at that stage demonstrated a total disregard and disbelief in the Government's policy. I do not know about the delays of the district valuer.

Mr. Cowans: They were substantial.

Mr. Finsberg: The district valuer does not come under my Department. If there were substantial delays, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to hear about them. Even if there had

not been delays that caused the properties, or some of them, to be caught in the moratorium, permission would not have been given because the situation differed once the June 1979 position had been adopted.
I think that responsibility must rest squarely on the shoulders of Gateshead and certainly not on my Department. I can only suggest that urgent negotiations take place between Gateshead and the police authority to ascertain how quickly Gateshead can rehouse the tenants in the three properties for which I do not find it possible to give permission. Gateshead will have to accept that they are a priority upon their housing resource allocations. They will have to be rehoused by Gateshead.
I am extremely upset that this has to happen to individual tenants. However, it is an inescapable consequence of Gateshead not accepting that there was a policy change and proceeding to implement policy that was perfectly acceptable under the previous Labour Government but unacceptable under this Government. I fear that I can go no further than giving my agreement to the one property to be acquired.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Nine o'clock.